HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Bruce Garrioch: "Many believe Gauthier will be the next out the door"

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-02-2011, 11:48 PM
  #201
bjac
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,053
vCash: 500
There are alot of reading comprehension problems in this thread...

bjac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2011, 12:10 AM
  #202
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjac View Post
There are alot of reading comprehension problems in this thread...
not to mention back-tracking...

and a nice touch of pure nonsense.

trying to justify the Gomez trade b/c the team needed a "leadership change"?

Even Gainey couldn't have thought Gomez would somehow be a better leader than Koivu... nothing, absolutely nothing, about his track record would have suggested that.

and Koivu (who I didn't necessarily consider the greatest leader anyhow, but that's besides the point), certainly had showed that he had no problem defaulting to other players stepping up and taking on a bigger role, so long as the team was succeeding (as he did in the '08 season, and has done effortlessly with the ducks).

No, the attempts at trying to make a rational excuse for an otherwise indefensible trade are nothing more than grasping at straws, and poorly done at that.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2011, 01:26 AM
  #203
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
lol come on man
That's how much I hated the Gainey years. The best was when he stepped back behind the bench after canning Carbonneau, and realized what a pile of **** team he had assembled.

What the heck is an old timer like you doing doubting my Gainey hatred anyways?

Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2011, 02:23 AM
  #204
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
not to mention back-tracking...

and a nice touch of pure nonsense.

trying to justify the Gomez trade b/c the team needed a "leadership change"?

Even Gainey couldn't have thought Gomez would somehow be a better leader than Koivu... nothing, absolutely nothing, about his track record would have suggested that.

and Koivu (who I didn't necessarily consider the greatest leader anyhow, but that's besides the point), certainly had showed that he had no problem defaulting to other players stepping up and taking on a bigger role, so long as the team was succeeding (as he did in the '08 season, and has done effortlessly with the ducks).

No, the attempts at trying to make a rational excuse for an otherwise indefensible trade are nothing more than grasping at straws, and poorly done at that.
A whole lot of reading comprehension problems. Yours.


Your whole post is without substance. That's grasping at straws. Just the fact that you need to twist what people say and not directly debate each point shows just how bankrupt you are in the argument department. The fact you use the concept of an 'excuse' shows just how childish you are.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2011, 05:39 AM
  #205
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Because we are speaking of Gainey (oh, I remember your history), suddenly your view becomes very simplistic and narrow, disregarding known facts and obvious underlying logic.

Yes, there is a justification, and it was mentioned before, often. Change of leadership. That meant Koivu had to go. No matter if you agree or disagree with this, the outcome of the season that had unfolded showed a lack in that department, and the outcome of the change of leadership has brought the team further into the playoffs than what the previous leadership did. So agree or disagree, for now the decision seems to have been the right one. And in this, I am not saying Gomez was here to replace Koivu's leadership. Gainey made sure to get a few players who have shown this and were familiar with each other. But replacing Koivu also meant they had to replace his skating position, from there the imperative need to get a top 6 center with experience.



I didn't say chemistry, I mentioned only chemistry when speaking of things that are more to hockey than just stats and perceived talent. When I spoke of Gomez and Markov I used the word synergy, and maybe you need to look the word up in the dictionary, but a foreseen synergy between the player was close to obvious if you watched a lot of both players. Both Neidermayer and Rafalski were great passers who could jump start transitions, just like Markov can, and this made the best use of Gomez.



Again, this has to do with your Gainey bias. In his first season with us, Gomez was actually great in the second half, something you seem to have a hard time to admit because of that bias. It's no coincidence either that Markov was there for that half season, and no coincidence he had his best career +/-.



Totally agree, but you don't find it odd that Markov posted his best +/- playing with Gomez than any other center he had? Sure, it has something to do with Martin's system, but even that system asks for that type of player to make it work. Here's the true speculative part, as Martin was there before FA came, he was part of the decision-making process, I have no doubt about that. Gomez was there to fill a need in a strong set of fundemental logics to create what management and Martin wanted, not the desperate need of the fans to finally have some big forward superstar to garner their hopes on.



You're putting this totally out of the context of what the Habs were going for. You're the one asking for him to make his linemates better (Yet Pouliot had his best moments playing with Gomez, something like a span of 15 goals in 30 games, ahem, and same for Pac), but that was not his intended purpose. You keep as far away as possible from trying to understand what Gainey was going for, so you can criticize it in very simplistic terms.

All the team's on ice performance become more a liability when Markov isn't there.



Position to be filled, a need to be met, and allocated % of cap to go with it. If there is an overpayment on the allocated amount for that need, than it's no more than 2 mil as you expect your top 6 centers to make around 5 mil. In two years span, the 'restraint' took almost a 25% drop because the cap went up. The 7,3 mil avg that he signed in '06 represented 13,5% of the total cap then, and now represents close to 11% of the total cap. An average player takes a bit under 5% of the cap. The cap savings from the initial season represents 2,5 % on today's cap, half the % of an average player, and the actual overpayment part on the position allocation is now at about 1% of the total cap space. The contract argument has always been overblown.





Koivu isn't better than Gomez. What would it be like for Koivu without Selanne? Same as Gomez without Markov. And I've already went over your denial of the situation that created Koivu's departure. As for McD, like I said before, I'll wait and see, I,ve watched him twice this season so far and am not sold on him.



I never said that. You're trying to use a generalization to put me in the same basket as those people, and then having those people have the same opinion as me for Markov, so that we can all be thrown on the same boat. This is disingenious and pathetic on your part. You remember when you first came around here, you were talking all high and mighty about having critical thinking? This is a good time for you to make a reminder to yourself to use some, because when it comes to Gomez and especially Gainey, you become blind to anything that would contradict your extremely biased POV towards both of them.




Yeah, you read all +10000 posts that summer that had the word Gomez appeared in. You're actually trying to make it sound as though I'm making this up. Grow-up kiddo.



And yet Gomez was the one who got the most points when Markov was in the lineup in regular season.... oops



No substance, just dismissal. That's what you did in most of your post.



Don't need to call him a mystery fan. Do the search yourself, instead of making innuendos.



You can be cynical and sarcastic all you want, you go to great lenghts to avoid taking in facts and logic that show your POV to be polarized rather than what you think it is.

And stop intentionally mispelling Ozy.
1. Try arguing my points instead of trying to validate yours by pretending I'm a Gainey Hater. He had done mostly good until that summer, that summer he made some terrible decisions. Then he quit on the team he built halfway through the following year.

I knew the ECF would be lumped into this as a justification for the trade, depsite the fact we had 88 regular season points and were completely dominated in every facet of the game throughout the first 2 rds.

Your Markov/Gomez analysis is nothing more than a reach. The fact is, at 7.4 million you should be able to overcome the loss of a player, especially a player he has never played with before his entire career.

Saku is/has and always will be a better hockey player than Scott Gomez. What would it be like without Selanne? Probably like playing with Zednik/Ryder, he seemed to fair pretty well without Selanne for his entire career.

I don't need your lectures on critical thinking. I remember certain threads with you talking in absolutes and completely embarrassing yourself, use your own advice, but rather than try to get this debate moving in a different direction, I'd rather you debate the topic at hand. Before you go off on how i'm completely biased towards Gainey and need a course on rational thinking, don't bother. This is a hockey forum, try keeping your posts related to hockey, your attempts to demean aren't gonna work.

Gomez had a good stretch, it doesn't validate the trade or make up for him being a complete no show for a year and a half.

I'm not making it sound like you're making it up, I'm telling you you're making it up, not that 1 NJD fan matters anyway in all of this.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2011, 05:58 AM
  #206
BaseballCoach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
1. Try arguing my points instead of trying to validate yours by pretending I'm a Gainey Hater. He had done mostly good until that summer, that summer he made some terrible decisions. Then he quit on the team he built halfway through the following year.

I knew the ECF would be lumped into this as a justification for the trade, depsite the fact we had 88 regular season points and were completely dominated in every facet of the game throughout the first 2 rds.
The Washington Series would probably have been 3-0 for us if Halak had not been abysmal in games 2 and 3, leading to his sitting out game 4. So while he did play miraculously well in game 6 and remarkably well in games 5 and 7 too, remember that we did play all of those games with the lead. In every game the Habs were the better team out of the gate, as the line of Moore-Lapierre-Pyatt outplayed Washington's second (best two-way) line, leaving BOTH Cammalleri and Gionta playing against inferior defensive players.

Against Pittsburgh, the Habs were the better team in the first four games, were admittedly lucky to split 5 and 6 but then completely dominated Game 7 and deserved the series.


Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Saku is/has and always will be a better hockey player than Scott Gomez. What would it be like without Selanne? Probably like playing with Zednik/Ryder, he seemed to fair pretty well without Selanne for his entire career.

Gomez had a good stretch, it doesn't validate the trade or make up for him being a complete no show for a year and a half.
Saku and Scott have had similar careers. Scott is five years younger and after 2009, the Habs HAD to effect a change of leadership. The Gomez trade was the START of the re-tool so even though with hindsight we can see that it was by far not the most important, we did at least get the change on the fly that was needed to keep the club competitive. The number of regular season points is misleading; Philly had only 1 point more and clinched a playoff spot AFTER us, and yet went to the SCF.

Gomez was an important part of the dressing room and our most productive player from Dec 26th to the end of the year, including the playoffs.

Trades do not have to be seen in an all-or-nothing way. If McDonagh stars for years for the Rangers, they will obviously be happy, but the Habs did meet their objectives with the trade, and the cap hit is clearly NOT hindering the team that much since we were not even able to spend all of our cap space this season.

Just setting the record straight a bit, not disputing that 2010-2011 was a bad season for Gomez.

BaseballCoach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2011, 06:35 AM
  #207
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
not to mention back-tracking...

and a nice touch of pure nonsense.

trying to justify the Gomez trade b/c the team needed a "leadership change"?

Even Gainey couldn't have thought Gomez would somehow be a better leader than Koivu... nothing, absolutely nothing, about his track record would have suggested that.

and Koivu (who I didn't necessarily consider the greatest leader anyhow, but that's besides the point), certainly had showed that he had no problem defaulting to other players stepping up and taking on a bigger role, so long as the team was succeeding (as he did in the '08 season, and has done effortlessly with the ducks).

No, the attempts at trying to make a rational excuse for an otherwise indefensible trade are nothing more than grasping at straws, and poorly done at that.
It's funny, because if you talk to Ducks fan, Koivu is considered the leader in Anaheim. He didn't ask for it, he just is.

I also find funny posters using puck possession and other stats to explain Montreal's poor start, out shooting opponents ect, which I mostly agree with, but then when it comes to our own success at getting to the ECF these stats are no longer part of the equation.

We got completely outplayed and fluked our way to the ECF.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2011, 06:54 AM
  #208
Roke
Registered User
 
Roke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
It's funny, because if you talk to Ducks fan, Koivu is considered the leader in Anaheim. He didn't ask for it, he just is.

I also find funny posters using puck possession and other stats to explain Montreal's poor start, out shooting opponents ect, which I mostly agree with, but then when it comes to our own success at getting to the ECF these stats are no longer part of the equation.

We got completely outplayed and fluked our way to the ECF.
Puck possession doesn't explain the Habs poor start or the playoff run two years ago, the variance in percentages do. Percentages which, at the team level, regress toward the mean.

Roke is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2011, 06:58 AM
  #209
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
The Washington Series would probably have been 3-0 for us if Halak had not been abysmal in games 2 and 3, leading to his sitting out game 4. So while he did play miraculously well in game 6 and remarkably well in games 5 and 7 too, remember that we did play all of those games with the lead. In every game the Habs were the better team out of the gate, as the line of Moore-Lapierre-Pyatt outplayed Washington's second (best two-way) line, leaving BOTH Cammalleri and Gionta playing against inferior defensive players.

Against Pittsburgh, the Habs were the better team in the first four games, were admittedly lucky to split 5 and 6 but then completely dominated Game 7 and deserved the series.




Saku and Scott have had similar careers. Scott is five years younger and after 2009, the Habs HAD to effect a change of leadership. The Gomez trade was the START of the re-tool so even though with hindsight we can see that it was by far not the most important, we did at least get the change on the fly that was needed to keep the club competitive. The number of regular season points is misleading; Philly had only 1 point more and clinched a playoff spot AFTER us, and yet went to the SCF.

Gomez was an important part of the dressing room and our most productive player from Dec 26th to the end of the year, including the playoffs.

Trades do not have to be seen in an all-or-nothing way. If McDonagh stars for years for the Rangers, they will obviously be happy, but the Habs did meet their objectives with the trade, and the cap hit is clearly NOT hindering the team that much since we were not even able to spend all of our cap space this season.

Just setting the record straight a bit, not disputing that 2010-2011 was a bad season for Gomez.
Coach, I don't know why you would post this nonsense when it is easily refutable.

May 12 '10 MONTREAL 5 PITTSBURGH
20 39
May 10 '10 PITTSBURGH MONTREAL J. 37 25
May 08 '10 MONTREAL 1 PITTSBURGH
33 25
May 06 '10 PITTSBURGH MONTREAL
35 25
May 04 '10 PITTSBURGH MONTREAL
25 18
May 02 '10 MONTREAL 3 PITTSBURGH
21 39
Apr 30 '10 MONTREAL 3 PITTSBURGH
31 24


Montreal was completely outplayed against Pittsburgh, a couple of games getting out shot nearly 2-1, both of which they won.

Montreal was never the better team in this series and definitely not in the first 4 games either. This completely matches the eye test too, the habs were lucky, nothing else.

I won't even bother posting the numbers from the Caps series as they're much worse.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2011, 07:02 AM
  #210
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roke View Post
Puck possession doesn't explain the Habs poor start or the playoff run two years ago, the variance in percentages do. Percentages which, at the team level, regress toward the mean.
I know this, but many posters still use them when they're attempting to support their own conclusions and ignore them when they don't.

Mathman has been the only one I've seen use them consistently for when the habs are both good and bad.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2011, 07:21 AM
  #211
Roke
Registered User
 
Roke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,892
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
I know this, but many posters still use them when they're attempting to support their own conclusions and ignore them when they don't.

Mathman has been the only one I've seen use them consistently for when the habs are both good and bad.
When you've grown up with sports writing and tv/radio commentary talking about "rising to the occasion" it's difficult to accept that what is effectively randomness plays a large role in the result of a game.

It's something I've come to accept in hockey for only the past 2 years or so, and had I not been exposed to Sabremetrics (especially BABIP regression and DIPS theory) it would have been much more difficult to change my viewpoint.

Roke is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2011, 09:02 PM
  #212
Whitesnake
Steel your Habs away
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 53,705
vCash: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
Saku and Scott have had similar careers. Scott is five years younger and after 2009, the Habs HAD to effect a change of leadership. The Gomez trade was the START of the re-tool so even though with hindsight we can see that it was by far not the most important, we did at least get the change on the fly that was needed to keep the club competitive. The number of regular season points is misleading; Philly had only 1 point more and clinched a playoff spot AFTER us, and yet went to the SCF.

Gomez was an important part of the dressing room and our most productive player from Dec 26th to the end of the year, including the playoffs.

Trades do not have to be seen in an all-or-nothing way. If McDonagh stars for years for the Rangers, they will obviously be happy, but the Habs did meet their objectives with the trade, and the cap hit is clearly NOT hindering the team that much since we were not even able to spend all of our cap space this season.

Just setting the record straight a bit, not disputing that 2010-2011 was a bad season for Gomez.
I'm stunned by this change of leadership thing. Not that long ago, well let say prior to the trade, Saku was seen as the ultimate warrior and the leader through example. Might not have been the greatest vocal captain, but the majority in here couldn't care less......until Gainey TOLD them that it WAS a big thing by not signing him. But Koivu had already proven he was a warrior, a great playoff player and a leader by example. So let's say would have liked to have a better group of leaders.....how about surrounding Koivu better for starters? Who the heck still thinks that the leadership ONLY starts and ends with the Captain? Don't look but the best year in the playoffs we had, for whoever still thinks Halak didn't play a key role, we didn't have a captain...we had a committee of leaders. So even if there's a captain in the room, anybody who is strong would have been able to add to the on-ice leadership of Koivu. But no. In Montreal, players HAVE to go. From players we send away for nothing and showing how great they are elsewhere. To the guy some in here thinks he should have his jersey retire.

But even though, for some strange reasons, you have to come to the conclusion that this evil guy has to go.....why would you aim at Gomez, a guy EVERYBODY knew was on the market and himself HAVING to go based on the fact that the world knew the Rangers were aiming for Gaborik. And why having to give your #2 d-man prospect on top of that. Koivu was THAT evil?

Geez, at one point, I'm almost tempted to call Sather an idiot. If he would have known, he would asked Subban and Price and we would have gladly send them to him....I mean, Koivu HAD to go and we had NO other options....

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2011, 10:59 PM
  #213
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
It's funny, because if you talk to Ducks fan, Koivu is considered the leader in Anaheim. He didn't ask for it, he just is.

I also find funny posters using puck possession and other stats to explain Montreal's poor start, out shooting opponents ect, which I mostly agree with, but then when it comes to our own success at getting to the ECF these stats are no longer part of the equation.

We got completely outplayed and fluked our way to the ECF.

i just don't get why? is it a deep respect/passion for Gainey?

either way, this thread was supposed to be about Garrioch (who's rumors are about as reliable as a 90's pontiac) and the notion that PG may be skating on thin ice...

will be interesting to see how this season plays out, how the team deals with things if/when another bad stretch happens, and how PG approaches both in-season roster decisions and what kind of plan he has for next year (knowing that we have Price/Subban in line for a big pay day, and 4-5 dmen to sign... not too mention address the fwd group).

Will the Molson's let him tinker at will? or are they starting to look elsewhere? i imagine how comfortably we are in the playoff race come January will figure prominently in their decision making.


Last edited by Miller Time: 11-03-2011 at 11:46 PM. Reason: cleaned it up
Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2011, 11:26 PM
  #214
habtastic
Registered User
 
habtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mumbai via MTL
Country: India
Posts: 9,581
vCash: 500
I don't think it was Gomez vs Koivu for leadership. It was cleaning ship and re-inventing the Habs and along with it (unfortunately) Koivu leaving. I still have my number 11 (the one with the C on it) up on my wall. I love Koivu. He's my favourite of all time. Still, in hindsight, the change was needed to put into place the team we have today. I'm not surprised at all that Koivu is doing great and leading in Anaheim. It's the same reason some players need a change for whatever reason. I'm not sure that Plekanec would have developed into the player he is with Saku still here (nothing between them, just the space, pressure and opportunity it created for Pleks). I don't think the dynamics would have been the same with Gio and Cammy. Also, make no mistake, we need the puck rushing and passing abilities of Gomez. Mind you, Gomez, not Woe-mez.

We're all waiting to see what happens with SG this season, but I still stand by the moves Gainey made to change the team. Not only that, but ever since our ECF appearance, we've been getting better (last year the injuries reeeeeally hurt us). I think even with DD in game 7, we would have won. Round 2...who knows (I don't agree with the "we never would have done anything anyway" argument re:moving on past boston). Anyway, certainly this year, the additions and development of youth has made us into a contender in my mind.

As was astutely observed above, this game is a lot about chance and our analysis of the team, particularly the losses comes down to a couple of inches. Yes they matter, but overall we have the team to be able to overcome them in a long season and get the law of averages back on our side. Then there's always option B:

Carey Price Vezina.

habtastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-03-2011, 11:44 PM
  #215
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
Trades do not have to be seen in an all-or-nothing way. If McDonagh stars for years for the Rangers, they will obviously be happy, but the Habs did meet their objectives with the trade, and the cap hit is clearly NOT hindering the team that much since we were not even able to spend all of our cap space this season.
Okay, nevermind Gomez's terrible year. And let's even dismiss the cap hit that he saddled us with.

Even then... what were our objectives with that trade? How have we met them? I still don't understand it.

If it was to make it to the Semi-finals... okay. We squeaked in with 88 points and made it to the Semis. But it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to give up a prospect like McD for such a short term gain. I mean, even forgetting the fact that Gomez had a terrible salary and the Rangers couldn't wait to be rid of him... why give up a great prospect? And why do it when we already had an equivalent center in Koivu?

I just don't understand why we'd do this. And if we were going to spend that kind of cash... why not just go after Gaborik ourselves? Why free up the money so a competitor could get him and pay a premium for an underperforming center in the process?

The whole thing was just so strange. Gainey inexplicably lets everyone leave for no return and then deals away Higgins and a great prospect (maybe our best) for Gomez who could've been had for a can of soda? I still don't get why he did this. It just didn't make any sense. And the fact that he gets three small players to build with? Why? I get they individually they have talent but collectively this just didn't make sense. Why team them up with Pleks who's already not that big to begin with?

Gainey is not a stupid man and he's built a cup winner in Dallas. That's what makes this whole fiasco so puzzling.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2011, 02:58 PM
  #216
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

Gainey is not a stupid man and he's built a cup winner in Dallas. That's what makes this whole fiasco so puzzling.
Gainey isn't a builder, he's a spender and thats why he was a decent GM before the cap. Dallas had a huge budget , back in the day, and it was a hot market to get the FA's into.

He's never had a fear of shipping off young future talent for expensive players (Niewendyk for Iginla) and he struggled with creating the same scenario here. Having to balance both the prospect pool and the NHL team was a problem for him.

Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2011, 03:13 PM
  #217
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 15,215
vCash: 500
Is it just for Gauthier to be punisheded for Gainey's sins? Of course not. The rationale that Gauthier shared in Gainey's decisions is specious because Gainey could overrule Gauthier whenever he wanted to. Gainey alone was the final decider. Gillett never told him he had to accept Gauthier's input. Of course this cuts both ways. Gainey has to be given credit for his good decisions as a GM. Who knows if he made any good decisions despite Gauthier's opposition to them.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2011, 03:16 PM
  #218
Lafleurs Guy
Moderator
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs View Post
Gainey isn't a builder, he's a spender and thats why he was a decent GM before the cap. Dallas had a huge budget , back in the day, and it was a hot market to get the FA's into.

He's never had a fear of shipping off young future talent for expensive players (Niewendyk for Iginla) and he struggled with creating the same scenario here. Having to balance both the prospect pool and the NHL team was a problem for him.
But he seemed to be assembling a pretty decent collection of youngsters: Kostitsyn bros, Lats, Chip, MaxPac, Lapierre, Gorges, Subban, McD, Price... That's certainly not a bad group to build with.

Although I argued that he could've rebuilt more aggressively he certainly didn't do a BAD job of collecting young talent. He tried to stay in the playoffs while building at the same time and as far as that goes he was pretty successful for a while.

I didn't like how he managed our assets and his last year here was terrible but I certainly didn't see him as the worst GM we've ever had. He did bring in some good talent for us.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2011, 03:38 PM
  #219
Forsead
Registered User
 
Forsead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Québec City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Coach, I don't know why you would post this nonsense when it is easily refutable.

May 12 '10 MONTREAL 5 PITTSBURGH
20 39
May 10 '10 PITTSBURGH MONTREAL J. 37 25
May 08 '10 MONTREAL 1 PITTSBURGH
33 25
May 06 '10 PITTSBURGH MONTREAL
35 25
May 04 '10 PITTSBURGH MONTREAL
25 18
May 02 '10 MONTREAL 3 PITTSBURGH
21 39
Apr 30 '10 MONTREAL 3 PITTSBURGH
31 24


Montreal was completely outplayed against Pittsburgh, a couple of games getting out shot nearly 2-1, both of which they won.

Montreal was never the better team in this series and definitely not in the first 4 games either. This completely matches the eye test too, the habs were lucky, nothing else.

I won't even bother posting the numbers from the Caps series as they're much worse.
Sorry, but stats aren't all in hockey if you watched the serie you should remember that most of those shots were from the perimeter and weren't hard to stop. The Habs protected Halak exactly the how it should have been done and were very opportunist at scoring goals. There is alot of way to win in hockey and I don't believe in chance during 2 complete series. Just that the team had a higher finishing than usual during the two first series that came back to the normal during the Flyers serie and that's why they lost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
I'm stunned by this change of leadership thing. Not that long ago, well let say prior to the trade, Saku was seen as the ultimate warrior and the leader through example. Might not have been the greatest vocal captain, but the majority in here couldn't care less......until Gainey TOLD them that it WAS a big thing by not signing him. But Koivu had already proven he was a warrior, a great playoff player and a leader by example. So let's say would have liked to have a better group of leaders.....how about surrounding Koivu better for starters? Who the heck still thinks that the leadership ONLY starts and ends with the Captain? Don't look but the best year in the playoffs we had, for whoever still thinks Halak didn't play a key role, we didn't have a captain...we had a committee of leaders. So even if there's a captain in the room, anybody who is strong would have been able to add to the on-ice leadership of Koivu. But no. In Montreal, players HAVE to go. From players we send away for nothing and showing how great they are elsewhere. To the guy some in here thinks he should have his jersey retire.

But even though, for some strange reasons, you have to come to the conclusion that this evil guy has to go.....why would you aim at Gomez, a guy EVERYBODY knew was on the market and himself HAVING to go based on the fact that the world knew the Rangers were aiming for Gaborik. And why having to give your #2 d-man prospect on top of that. Koivu was THAT evil?

Geez, at one point, I'm almost tempted to call Sather an idiot. If he would have known, he would asked Subban and Price and we would have gladly send them to him....I mean, Koivu HAD to go and we had NO other options....
This isn"t true at all since the lockout there was alot of disputal over Koivu leadership (not on the ice tho) remember the cliques problems ? Ribeiro vs Koivu ? lot of informations by journalists that Koivu wasn't talking to young players like Lapierre and Latendresse. Problems with Kovalev and Koivu etc etc. At each season there was a new story, while I don't think all was true still seem that he wasn't the best at all. I'm a big Koivu fan and I think he is a great leader on the ice, the problem is probably other than that. Some players that saw both leaderships saying that last year was the year that the team was the most unite they played. Plus IIRC Habs and Koivu said that they both thought it was time to part way up and that's something I never saw in those threads, which mean Gainey had no choice to find a new center. Also, Koivu was getting older and he is kind of injury prone.


Last edited by Forsead: 11-04-2011 at 03:49 PM.
Forsead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2011, 03:46 PM
  #220
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
I'm stunned by this change of leadership thing. Not that long ago, well let say prior to the trade, Saku was seen as the ultimate warrior and the leader through example. Might not have been the greatest vocal captain, but the majority in here couldn't care less......until Gainey TOLD them that it WAS a big thing by not signing him. But Koivu had already proven he was a warrior, a great playoff player and a leader by example.
Requiring a chance in leadership and culture doesn't mean that Koivu's anything less than a great leader and captain. It only means that there needs to be a culture shift.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs View Post
Gainey isn't a builder, he's a spender and thats why he was a decent GM before the cap. Dallas had a huge budget , back in the day, and it was a hot market to get the FA's into.

He's never had a fear of shipping off young future talent for expensive players (Niewendyk for Iginla) and he struggled with creating the same scenario here. Having to balance both the prospect pool and the NHL team was a problem for him.
I don't agree. Dallas was a team that Gainey built. He complemented a core that he built with players like Hull, but the core remained as one that he built.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2011, 05:02 PM
  #221
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Requiring a chance in leadership and culture doesn't mean that Koivu's anything less than a great leader and captain. It only means that there needs to be a culture shift.



I don't agree. Dallas was a team that Gainey built. He complemented a core that he built with players like Hull, but the core remained as one that he built.
It would have been great for us if Gainey could have come into Montreal with a Mike Modano already drafted and ready to be a star.

Agnostic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2011, 05:07 PM
  #222
Zeroknowledge*
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Facing a PC
Posts: 1,644
vCash: 500
I don't mind Gauthier to be quite honest but if we lose him I wouldn't mind getting a GM that isn't passive and boring as him.

Zeroknowledge* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2011, 05:11 PM
  #223
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post

I don't agree. Dallas was a team that Gainey built. He complemented a core that he built with players like Hull, but the core remained as one that he built.
He built it, yes, that I never argued. However, he's a GM that was great when the game had no cap, and he could fix his gaps with money. He did it in Dallas, he spent money on vets. I have no problem with that.

However, you can see his same pattern when he blew this team up and signed (I'll argue he overpaid till the death) 2 forwards and traded for another nobody in the league would touch.

Some people don't have a problem with it, I can live with the Cammy and Gio signings. Moen and Gill were fine. There is, nor will there ever will be, an excuse to make that Gomez trade, it was just bad.

Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2011, 05:23 PM
  #224
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs View Post
He built it, yes, that I never argued. However, he's a GM that was great when the game had no cap, and he could fix his gaps with money. He did it in Dallas, he spent money on vets. I have no problem with that.

However, you can see his same pattern when he blew this team up and signed (I'll argue he overpaid till the death) 2 forwards and traded for another nobody in the league would touch.

Some people don't have a problem with it, I can live with the Cammy and Gio signings. Moen and Gill were fine. There is, nor will there ever will be, an excuse to make that Gomez trade, it was just bad.
Fair enough. I can see the comparison in how he handled Dallas' problems and Montreal's.

I don't have a problem with any of the signings either. My only real problem with the Gomez trade was the inclusion of McDonagh. I don't mind acquiring Gomez in general, though.

Either way, he did fix things with money, and I'm not a big believer in that. I think he probably did a better job with buying a team than most, though.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-04-2011, 05:26 PM
  #225
NewHabsEra*
 
NewHabsEra*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeroknowledge View Post
I don't mind Gauthier to be quite honest but if we lose him I wouldn't mind getting a GM that isn't passive and boring as him.
He has been one of the most active GMs in the league since hired.. Personally I think Gauthier will look great once our D core shape up, the youth injection will pay alot at the end.. Actually, I think Gauthier will be the Habs GM for years..

NewHabsEra* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:42 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.